Jim Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The only thing that might be nice is to have his later ObjectREXX
on z/VM
That would be Simon Nash's Object REXX (just to get the attribution
where it belongs :-))
Ray Mansell
We just upgraded to Z/VM 5.2 last year, so why is Rexx so old?
Because it does everything we want of it? When Mike Cowlishaw
wrote REXX he wrote a wonderful and complete language. The
only thing that might be nice is to have his later ObjectREXX
on z/VM, but for what we use REXX for (scripting)
We just upgraded to Z/VM 5.2 last year, so why is Rexx so old?
q cplevel,
z/VM Version 5 Release 2.0, service level 0501 (64-bit)
Generated at 01/24/07 16:08:01 CDT
IPL at 01/31/07 16:51:24 CDT
Ready; T=0.01/0.01 14:43:29
q cmslevel,
CMS Level 22, Service Level 501
Anybody know?
Thanks,
Bob
I wouldn't call it old... maybe seasoned
Bob Heerdink wrote:
We just upgraded to Z/VM 5.2 last year, so why is Rexx so old?
q cplevel,
z/VM Version 5 Release 2.0, service level 0501 (64-bit)
Generated at 01/24/07 16:08:01 CDT
IPL at 01/31/07 16:51:24 CDT
Ready; T=0.01/0.01 14:43:29
q
On Thursday, 04/12/2007 at 02:48 EST, Bob Heerdink
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We just upgraded to Z/VM 5.2 last year, so why is Rexx so old?
Because our customers are not agitating us to upgrade Rexx; not providing
descriptions of how their businesses are adversely affected by the lack of
I did ask once on this(?) forum if there was interest. No response.
The two ANSI REXX functions that are missing are CHANGESTR and
COUNTSTR.
I
coded up my own versions of both, and you can too.
I think that's the key bit: everyone's written their own widget for
this, so not a big enough
On: Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 05:27:06PM -0400,Alan Altmark Wrote:
} I would guess the vast majority find the current level of Rexx good
} enough.
And those that don't find it to be good enough have downloaded the
Marist pipes distribution and are happy as a clam with it.
--
Rich Greenberg N Ft
